Another Consciousness meltdown, this time a la Paar and Schips...

nobody is saying a single thing:
So, what exactly is your problem with this?

I find all of THIS perfectly acceptable

but I suppose you’re just looking for an excuse to take her out for ice cream and a movie, aren't you?

???

🙂

soto said:Look, I dig all of THIS

but you really think she’s gonna say yes to an ice cream date or a movie?

???

🙂

Man, I’d totally call her right now if I wasn't literally twice her age. Give or take a year.
And honestly, I might even be teaching her at school, so that would be super awkward.

It would actually be illegal.

but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be pretty convenient.

I guess you'll come up with just about any excuse to avoid taking that next big step.

The girl is just sitting there at home—totally worked up—waiting for the phone to ring.
She's far too proud to reach out first.
And the professor? Nothing...

Who would have thought people in that age group could be so incredibly shy?

Just gather some courage and...

William Gonzalez3 said:The girl is just sitting at home, all worked up and waiting for the call.
Too damn proud to actually send the first text.

Oh man, William Gonzalez3... honestly, you could probably use a little philosophy lesson. Seems like you spent your whole college years just grabbing beers instead of hitting the books.

mistyfox812 said:It sounds like you might have spent more time at the local pub than actually studying during your college years.

Well, it’s almost like you know me personally or something.

Anyway, here’s a photo of me from sophomore year—just so everyone can have a good laugh, and maybe I can take a little trip down memory lane myself.

those were the days my friend...

Pandora10 said:Why are you crying, poor thing... I mean, can they even shut off your electricity or something? 🙂

I truly hope they can. Can't you smell something burning? 😢

mistyfox812 said:I'm just curious—when exactly did I write something that you wouldn't be able to comprehend?

You have a point there. It’s something that really would be impossible to write. My apologies. 😢

mistyfox812 said:Not enough (1), and you should probably give Paar/Schips a better read. 🙂

Oh no! I've already heard that one today. 🙂

afriend said:I've said many times before that consciousness must be integrated into scientific research.

It never even occurred to me that science could actually explain consciousness.
Actually, it never crossed my mind that it could ever be explained at all.

afriend said:There is an endless series of indicators (and strong ones at that) suggesting that consciousness is not of physiological origin, nor is it exclusively tied to this so-called material body.

Like what?
Honestly, I suspect that consciousness (the kind we possess) is linked to the physical body. I think I started a thread once about the senses and knowledge/consciousness. Could a body that has never received any stimuli or possessed senses be conscious? I don't think so, because consciousness relies on experience, memory, and knowledge, which we gather through our senses and store in the brain. The brain is material. It seems unlikely a person could be conscious without a brain.
But then again, I don't believe consciousness itself is physical. Did the brain evolve first, leading to consciousness emerging at a certain moment, or was the brain projected into consciousness from a specific "moment," or perhaps the Universal Consciousness projected the brain into existence, where consciousness later emerged at a particular point (that's my take, anyway)? It's all unprovable.

delija said:That's exactly why Consciousness is INFINITY—it existed long before the cosmos was even a thought!
I guess that Consciousness wasn't quite reaching the level of today's universal Awareness—you know, the kind that manifests throughout the entire cosmos—but rather, it was hitting the value of the Law of total logic.
I suppose whenever something shifted within the Infinity nature of things, it always happened according to the Law of total logic.

I hope I was being clear enough this time? 🙂

I think I finally get it this time. 😢 If I understood that correctly—and that's just my take on things—then we’re actually on the same page here. I never even suggested that there was ever a state of nothingness to begin with. 😕

mistyfox812 said:Nancy Fowler61, I suppose you didn't get a little mixed up with the units, did you? 😉

No, I wasn't even allowed to touch the computer because of her. 👎
🤣

mistyfox812 said:I’d probably give her a call by now, but I’m twice her age. Plus one more year on top of that.
I might actually be teaching her at school, so it probably wouldn't be appropriate.

You aren't even teaching me that in school. I won't even touch Philosophy until my senior year. Man. 😢

William Gonzalez3 said:That would be illegal under our current laws.

Not even a chance! 😲 😢

🤣

You think not?

It doesn't really matter.

I suppose you'll have to teach me a thing or two about philosophy first—after all, I definitely took a bit of a beating from my professor back in college.

"Quote:"

William Gonzalez3 said:Would you not?

No. 😬

"Quote:"

William Gonzalez3 said:It doesn't really matter.

Yeah. Look, I’m sorry to say this, but you really blew it. 🙂

William Gonzalez3 said:First, you’re going to have to teach me some philosophy, because my professor absolutely tore me apart in class.

😢 I guess I should probably share this little philosophical nugget I came across earlier... maybe it'll spark something for you all. $38I guess I should probably start by saying that I might be overthinking this, but maybe there's more to it than meets the eye. I mean, things aren't always as straightforward as they seem at first glance, right? I suppose we could look at it from another angle, though I'm not entirely sure if that would change much. It’s just a thought.

Nancy Fowler61 said:With all due respect, I think you've completely missed the mark here. 🙂

What exactly do you mean by that?

When I mentioned that it wasn't important, what I actually meant was—well, more like "let's just move past that for now."

Don't you think that's a little—well, maybe a bit much?$38 perhaps too intense?

The principles of modal logic are usually taught $17 on an hourly basis.

Nancy Fowler61 said:You aren't teaching me this in school. I won't even touch Philosophy until my senior year. Ouch. 😢

Look, I'm not actually teaching philosophy here—just whatever's in the title. 👋

What’s the actual connection between being a science major and having a passion for philosophy?

To give some context—I once had a professor who, while working through his degree, was essentially juggling physics, math, and philosophy all at once.
I also know quite a few young philosophers out there who insist that mathematics and philosophy are practically sister sciences, or something along those lines.

But why is that?

Why does someone who wants to dive into philosophy feel the need to master math and geometry first—not to mention physics, which seems just as relevant?

(I have my own theories on this, of course, but I’d love to hear some specific perspectives.)

So, what was it that drew you toward philosophy in the first place?

William Gonzalez3 said:So, what actually pulled you into philosophy?

Honestly, there were just so many massive, unanswered questions left hanging. I figured maybe blending physics, biology, and psychology might actually crack something open... you know, like those quantum consciousness theories afriend was talking about earlier, or that whole autopoiesis stuff... total rabbit hole territory. But then it hit me—what I’m actually looking for in philosophy is just the stuff I've been obsessed with my whole life. I just didn't realize it was called "philosophy" back then, so I spent way too much time studying the wrong things. 🙂

Nancy Fowler61, when you sit down to write a sentence, do you actually take a second to read it back and really think about what you're saying?

Look, you wrote: Can a body that has never received any kind of stimulus...

That point doesn't even hold water for a debate—there isn't a single living or dead body that exists without receiving some form of stimulus, even for the smallest fraction of a second.

Did a brain emerge first, creating consciousness at a specific moment in time,

Or is that irrelevant, since you already agreed that consciousness is ETERNAL?
Do you honestly believe the brain is eternal too? 😕

"Quote:"

hiddenviper9 said:Nancy Fowler61, when you sit down to write a sentence, do you actually take a moment to reread it and truly think about what you’re saying?

Well. 😢

hiddenviper9 said:Look, you wrote: Can a body that has never received any kind of stimulation...
This is really hardly worth even discussing—because let's face it, there isn't a single living or dead thing out there that doesn't receive some kind of stimulus at any given moment.

A body without any senses? I mean, could someone really be deaf, blind, paralyzed, and also lacking a nose and a tongue? It just seems... well, it sounds absolutely miserable. 🙂 So... even from birth? Just being kept alive on an IV drip? Technically breathing, sure—but is that really living? Or is it just existing? 😕
It’s a body that possesses the potential for consciousness—since it has a brain, which is a prerequisite—but it simply can't actualize it because it lacks the senses to do so. I mean, aren't consciousness and the senses inherently linked?

hiddenviper9 said:Did the brain emerge first, only to have consciousness spark within it at some specific point in time? I guess it’s one of those questions that just keeps you up at night. Maybe the physical structure had to be fully laid out before the lights could actually turn on, or maybe there's something deeper going on that we haven't even begun to wrap our heads around yet. It's a tough one to pin down.

It’s pointless again, really, because you even agreed yourself that consciousness is ETERNAL.
Do you really think the brain is eternal, too? 😕

I don't necessarily believe that the brain is eternal. I also wouldn't go so far as to say that consciousness simply popped into existence because the brain appeared first. But that seems to be the prevailing view among materialists, doesn't it? 😕 I'm leaning toward that third option I mentioned earlier. Honestly, when I talk to my friends about this, I just tell them that neither they nor I can actually prove what we believe through any kind of scientific method.

mistyfox812 said:I'm not exactly teaching philosophy here, just addressing what's in the title. 👋

Huh? I honestly thought you were some kind of philosopher or psychologist, but it turns out you're actually a physicist.
😕 You monster. 😢

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hiddenviper9 says: Look, you wrote: Can a body that has never received any kind of stimulus...
That doesn't even work for a discussion—because there isn't a single body, living or dead, that doesn't receive some kind of stimulus, even in the smallest possible window of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy Fowler61 said:A body without senses? I mean, couldn't there be a deaf, blind, paralyzed person without a nose or a tongue (poor thing 🙂)? And just like that from birth? Fed through an IV? Technically alive, but basically not there? 😕
That’s a body that has the potential for consciousness (it has a brain, which is the requirement) but can't actually realize it because of the lack of senses. Aren't consciousness and the senses tied together?

I mean, he's basically telling you that everything in this world, whether it's dead or alive, receives stimuli. Basically saying you phrased it wrong. Even though you specifically asked:

"Can a body that has never received any kind of stimulus/has no senses be conscious?"

He knows what you meant, but instead of explaining the ambiguity, he's just nitpicking your mistake and pointing fingers at it.

Jonathan Brown6 said:Well, I mean, he could just tell you that everything in this world—whether it’s alive or dead—is subject to stimuli. Basically, he's saying you phrased things a bit awkwardly.

He knows what you actually meant, but instead of helping clarify the confusion, he's just pulling your mistake out of context to point fingers.

😢 😠

But why bother?

🙂

I was referring to physical sensations, you know? Things the body actually feels and is conscious of. Did I get it right that time? 😢

@ hiddenviper9: If you already know what I meant, let's just get back to the actual topic. 😢 You guys know I struggle with finding the right words sometimes, so please, can we just move past it already? 🙂

hiddenviper9 said:There isn't even a point in debating this—because there isn't a single living or dead thing in existence that doesn't receive some kind of stimulus at any given moment. I guess it's just a fact.

Are you sure about that? Maybe every single unit just operates entirely on its own, totally independent of whatever is next to it.

Does anyone have a link to that whole cat-in-a-box story, maybe one where it’s actually explained a bit better? I’ve gone over it a few times now, but I guess I still don't fully get where the cat actually is.

relativity said:Does anyone have a link to that story about the cat in the box, maybe explained a bit better? I've stumbled onto it a few times now but I still don't totally get where the cat actually is.

Look, I'll break it down for you—honestly, this is probably the clearest way to put it. 😁 If anything's still fuzzy, just ask. And if you think I'm making this up, just search Schrödinger's cat on Google.

So, when we're talking about the microscopic world, we usually can't actually see what's happening—like, you can't just "see" an electron or whatever. Instead, we have to make educated guesses about the micro-world based on experiments we run in the macro-world, which is the stuff we can actually perceive.

Which basically means that old Zen koan—you know, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?"—actually becomes a huge deal in quantum physics. A perfect example is this thought experiment from one of the pioneers of quantum theory, Schrödinger, which is why everyone calls it Schrödinger's cat.

Basically, you take a cat and some radioactive material and put them in a box. You use just a tiny amount of that radioactive stuff, so there's a statistical chance the cat survives. You close the lid and let some time pass. Then, you wonder about the cat's state before you open the box.

Common sense tells us: the cat is either dead or alive. Sure, we don't know which one it is yet, and we won't find out until we peek inside—basically after the act of measurement. But we still assume it was in one specific state, either living or dead, before the measurement happened and regardless of whether we looked or not. It feels totally nonsensical to claim that only our act of measuring (opening the box) is what forces it into that state.

But here's the thing: according to the standard interpretation of quantum physics, it works differently. We have to view the cat's state before the measurement (before opening the lid) as a sort of mixture—kind of a "living-dead" potential state. It’s only our act of measurement that "locks in" one of those possibilities. Opening the box is what makes it either live or die. Before that measurement happens, it doesn't even make sense to say the cat is "alive" or "dead."

It's the same deal with microscopic things, like electrons and all that. It doesn't make sense to imagine them existing as little solid balls independent of us observing or measuring them.

Now, per most physicists' interpretations, this only applies to microscopic objects. For this to even count as a quantum mechanics problem, you have to be dealing with something radioactive (not, say, just regular poison). See, we can't predict exactly what a radioactive sample will do—we can only guess using probability—and radioactivity belongs to that micro-world that we can only ever observe indirectly.